PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BHUBANESWAR vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD.

In the result, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

disallowed the same under provisions of Section 14A of the Act?. 6 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue would

ASHIRBAD BEHERA vs. ASST.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal [ITA/7/2020] filed by the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 27Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Respondent.. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th May, 2016 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita No.665/Kol/2012 & Ita No.325/Kol/2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Appeal Was Admitted On 12Th December, 2019 On The Following Substantial Question Of Law: “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Erred In Law In Holding That The Assessee Has Sufficient Own Funds, Expenditure By Way Of Interest Are Not To Be Taken In Account

disallowance of interest is not warranted, under section 14A of the Income-tax Act for investments made in tax-free bonds/securities which yield tax-free dividend and interest to the assess-banks in those situations where, interest- free own funds available with the assessee, exceeded their intestments. With this conclusion, 6

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

disallow the same when the procedure to adopt assuming jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 263 remained unfulfilled by the learned CIT.” 5. The ITAT further noted the decision of the Supreme Court in GE India Technology Cen. (P) Ltd., v. CIT (193 Taxman 234) to the effect that if there is a remittance abroad, the requirement under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 148, had recorded the following reasons for reopening: “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-.The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl. CIT, Range-10, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Section 148, had recorded the following reasons for reopening: “M/s. Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., PAN AAACG2710J A.Y. 2010-11 The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 on 04.02.2011 declaring loss of Rs.(-) 14,162/-.The return was processed u/s 143(1). Information was forwarded to this office through the Addl. CIT, Range-10, New Delhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S.JAGANNATH CHAUDHURY

The appeal is disposed of as indicated above

Bench: MR. JUSTICE K. S. JHAVERI (CJ),MR. JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA

disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer concludes that the assessee earned income from interest on deposits from members and deposits made in scheduled Banks from trading commodities and interest from call money depositors. In view of the view taken by the Assessing Officer, the said income has been treated as income from

PURI HOTEL P.LTD vs. ADDL.COMNR.OF TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The Tribunal?

section 254 of the I.T. Act, 1961 that as a consequence of the impugned order of the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.80,221/- is payable by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department. We direct that on the petitioner paying 50% of the said amount of Rs.80,221/-by the end of January, 2005 the balance of the demand shall

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

6 coming within the puview of the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 10. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant places strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –vs- SMIFS SECURITIES LTD rendered on 22nd

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGAM LTD.

In the result, this Income Tax Appeal is allowed, setting

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. 4. The first appellate authority, after a detailed discussion of the relevant provisions, as well as the ITA NO. 11 OF 2018 -4- adjustment of various Rules and Tribunals, allowed the Appeal in part. 5. As per the said order

M/S.G.K.W.LTD vs. COMNR.OF INCOMETAX

The appeal is disposed of in the

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

6. In the present case, the deduction is sought of 1/6th of the expenditure on acquiring the know-how. It has been disallowed only because in the previous year in question, the manufacturing activity of the Assessee had not commenced. As explained by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforementioned decision, this is not one of the conditions

INDUSTRIAL INCUBATOR vs. DY.COMMNR.OF I.T.

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Section 148 of the IT Act, the AO inter alia held that the claim for 100% on aerators, marine water pumps and motors was not justified. 6. The Assessee during the assessment proceedings disclosed that the name of the supply of the aerators, and the notice issued to the suppliers by the AO. The said supplier in its reply

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. INDRANI PATNAIK

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO

disallow the impugned purchases as unexplained u/s 69C. It is also important to appreciate here that the appellant group of cases had been subjected to search operation on 09.09.2010 i.e. the same financial year in which the impugned payments had been made for the said purchases. The search proceedings have not led to discovery of any evidence either